Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9031 total)
80 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Tanypteryx (3 members, 77 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 884,899 Year: 2,545/14,102 Month: 210/703 Week: 31/158 Day: 31/10 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 962 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 19 of 432 (642728)
12-01-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taz
12-01-2011 1:11 AM


What-ifs
Once again, instead of some sort of evidence, we are treated to "what-ifs" -- objections made up with no scientific or logical support which are designed to reinforce a belief which otherwise would have to be questioned.

We see this on all the threads where creationists post their "evidence" -- and thereby show their lack thereof.

No "what if" is too outlandish to post if it serves it's function. And if it is rebutted, well here comes another, and yet another. Pretty soon the first one is recycled, and around and around we go.

Guess that's what you have to do when you're doing apologetics instead of science, eh?

And when you have no real evidence to back up your claims.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 12-01-2011 1:11 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 962 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 31 of 432 (642946)
12-02-2011 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ICANT
12-02-2011 8:42 PM


Re: Catastrophic (for creationists)
The time when all land was in one mass was something like 250 million years ago.

Are you claiming that people were cavorting about that long ago? And if so, what is your evidence? (Leave the bible out of this; it's not evidence.)

Science shows that the flood could not have occurred at that time because modern humans didn't evolve until about 249.8 million years later. No modern humans, no Noah and no ark, it's that simple.

Since this is the science forum, I await your answer relying on scientific research, and not ancient myths.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 8:42 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 9:26 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 12-02-2011 10:15 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 962 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 33 of 432 (642948)
12-02-2011 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
12-02-2011 9:26 PM


Re: Catastrophic (for creationists)
And you know that to be a fact because _____________________.

It is your clain so fill in the blank.

No problem. We know that because of scientific research. And there is no scientific evidence that contradicts that information.

Let's turn this question around.

And you believe that to be incorrect because _____________________.

Remember, this is the science forum, so leave out magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, flat earth, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, crop circles, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, faked moon landings, divination, geocentrism, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, televangelists, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.

OK?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 9:26 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 10:22 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 962 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 110 of 432 (645163)
12-23-2011 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICANT
12-23-2011 10:04 PM


Parbroiled?
I haven't been paying much attention to this thread as there is simply too much nonsense here.

But one statement caught my eye.

There would be no superheated steam belching into the atmosphere. It would not even reach the floor of the ocean as it would push the water that was above it upward as it cooled on its journey.

And did I see somewhere here that the volume of water needed for the flood was some seven times that on the surface?

And that you are proposing that this water comes from under the earth as superheated steam?

Could you supply some numbers for the equivalent of 7x earth's surface water being condensed from superheated steam, along with the temperature of the resulting ocean when that additional water is added? It would seem to me that the 7:1 ratio would result in an extremely hot ocean, easily killing off Noah and his traveling zoo.

But you proposed this, so you must have some figures you can share with us.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2011 10:04 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 12-23-2011 10:24 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2011 5:55 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 962 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 261 of 432 (648172)
01-13-2012 3:11 PM


More fuel for the fire
The Draining Floodwaters: Geologic Evidence Reflects the Genesis Text

http://www.icr.org/article/6539/

Exerpt:

Of course, recognizing that old-earth scenarios are hopelessly flawed, we would certainly disagree with the chart’s long time span of 600 million years, preferring instead to interpret the whole as the record of the great Flood of Noah’s day. Moving upward, we see the bottom as the early Flood period, then the mid-Flood, the waning stages of the Flood, and the post-Flood time at the top. The Genesis 8:3 grounding occurred during the later Zuni, when floodwaters were at their maximum and then began to wane. Within the rising and maintaining Flood portions of the chart is where geologists have seen these six (maybe subdivided into more) megasequences. During the final drainage, the waters came and went with greater frequency.

So all they have to do to make this silly scenario fit is to squeeze 600 million years into less than 1 year.

But hey, that's no problem for creation "science!"

What a joke!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by DavidOH, posted 01-16-2012 1:00 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 962 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(6)
Message 266 of 432 (652466)
02-13-2012 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by jrchamblee
02-13-2012 7:02 PM


What ifs
Maybe the fountains mean God brought it from outer space as he is powerful enough to do that, an then dry it up.sent it back to space.

Your reply is what I call a "What if?"

When trying to find an explanation for some phenomenon or claim, and when backed into a corner, creationists usually resort to "What ifs."

That means they have no idea how something claimed in the bible or in dogma was done but they believe it anyway, so they just make something up. It doesn't matter how silly, outlandish, or impossible it may be--that's not the point. The point is they have to have something to explain that particular phenomenon or claim. That makes everything OK in their minds.

On being shown that their "What if" is contrary to the evidence, they promptly come up with another "What if." It doesn't even matter if it contradicts the previous "What if!" And it certainly doesn't matter if it contradicts the "What ifs" other creationists are making up.

After several of these "What ifs" are refuted a creationist is most likely to retreat to the first one again; and around and around we go.

Your post is a classic example of the genre.

And it is also a classic example of Heinlein's observation that "Belief gets in the way of learning."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by jrchamblee, posted 02-13-2012 7:02 PM jrchamblee has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Tangle, posted 02-14-2012 8:17 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 962 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 299 of 432 (692535)
03-04-2013 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by CoolBeans
03-04-2013 3:05 PM


Re: I suppose that this might be relevant.
Re: I suppose that this might be relevant.

Or not.

The flood story is a myth, with overwhelming evidence that it never happened as described.

Clutching at straws is futile.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by CoolBeans, posted 03-04-2013 3:05 PM CoolBeans has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by CoolBeans, posted 03-04-2013 3:22 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021